Massawyrm is bored to tears by the complete lack of a movie in PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2

Hola all. Massawyrm here.
When I was in High School, I became involved in the local Halloween Haunted House and spent a few years scaring the crap out of people while learning the ins and outs of how to set one up. The end result of that experience is that I can never go to a haunted house again. Once you know all the tricks and gags, it just isn’t scary anymore. But films don’t work like that. They invest you in characters, tell you detailed stories and control your mood with score and cinematography. But what happens when you remove these four elements from a movie? You get PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2.
There is a meme that has been running around the internet for years that is just a hair more sophisticated than a Rickroll. The idea is to link someone to a picture and tell them that something is amiss, often highlighted with the phrase “When you see it, you’ll shit.” The gag is that there’s nothing out of place. The picture is fine – except that it is an animated gif or flash object that suddenly changes to something frightening and might even scream at you. It’s supposed to scare you – but what it really does is just startle you by distracting your mind long enough to leave you susceptible to being caught off guard. It’s a cheap gimmick that works once or twice before it wears out its welcome; it is also the fundamental principle upon which PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and its sequel are based.
The PARANORMAL ACTIVITY series is nothing more than a cinematic supernatural WHERE’S WALDO in which we are shown long, static shots of a room before a light turns on and off or a chandelier swings. And since these “spooky” sequences are the only thing the movie has going on, you are forced to look around the screen constantly, trying to find what the gag is before the Mensa members in the audience ooh, ahh and verbally announce it to the rest of the crowd. “Oh! Did you see that? The chandelier is moving!” Sometimes someone off camera opens a door; sometimes someone bangs on a wall after a minute of solid silence. Once the movie gets going, the characters begin seeing the activity and reacting to it, followed by two minutes of “Oh shit, wasn’t that freaky?”
PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 and its predecessor are the bottom of the barrel of the Found Footage genre, falling lazily upon the format to avoid needing any kind of talent behind the camera. The scripts are non-existent, the dialog nothing more than the mindless babble of average, uninteresting reality television personalities and the characters are built out of Scotch Tape and cardboard. The most character background you can glean out of anyone here is the job one of them has; outside of that there is nothing. These people like cameras and carry them around at the most inappropriate times – that’s the most I can tell you. When the movie needs to explain a relevant piece of information, someone sets a camera down next to themselves and uses the internet, and reads to us.
In order for these films to work, you *really* have to buy into the conceit. It will not distract you with story or character development like other, better movies will; you have to want to believe it is real and get off to whatever gimmick they throw at you next. You have to accept that this is not a movie, but a theme park ride. Otherwise, you’re just playing WHERE’S BEELZEBUB for 90 minutes.
This is not a better film than the original; it is a different film from the original using the exact same gimmicks. The first film had something of a (admittedly terrible) character arc, and arguably was less about a haunting and more about an emasculated alpha male douchebag trying to maintain control of his household and beat the devil at his own game. Micah Sloat is one of the worst protagonists in modern horror history, a two dimensional asshole whose reluctance to turn to someone for help dooms his household. But at least he had a second dimension; Katie didn’t. She was just terrified all the time and wanted the camera out of her face.
PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 trades that startling level of character depth for an actual mythology, which it aims to flesh out about as much as the characters in the first film. Here, no one has a discernable personality short of Suburban Dad, Suburban Teenager and Katie 2.0 (who happens to be Katie’s sister.) They are characters so thin and hollow that you will beg for the deep, rich stereotypes of z-grade 80’s slasher films. The baby has about as much personality as every other character in the film, and its most likable character is the family dog. And I get it; they’re supposed to work the same way Bella Swan works in the TWILIGHT novels, in which you are told nothing about them so you can put your family and friends into those roles and feel the terror by association. Again, it’s a theme park ride, not a movie.
What they do right this time around is tie the film in seamlessly with the first, answering any questions you might have about these connections along the way, while exploring the aspects of what this creature is and why it might be haunting them. But it doesn’t have any answers and the creature remains as nameless as ever. But my hat is off to them for trying.
The first film was forgivable for being a $10,000 experiment in a sub-category of film that had yet to reach its apex when it was made. But it was not a hit because it was good. It was a hit because the people that work at Paramount marketing are fucking geniuses that know their jobs better than almost anyone else in the industry and created one of the most successful campaigns of the modern era. They talked you into being scared; and odds are you were. If you can be talked into it again, you most likely will be. I know a number of other critics that are singing the praises of this film. But if you had problems with the last one, you’ll have problems with this one; it’s just more of the same. But in ten years I imagine people will look back and remember the experience, but not the film.
Until next time friends,
Massawyrm

Capone liked it, Massa loathed it. 50/50, as it probably should be. I liked the first one for what it was, and am interested in this one, if nothing else then seeing what's up with the baby in the mirror --- when he isn't in the crib....

But the Halloween haunted-house comparison seems apt, from what I've heard. Something about it just says "see this in a theater, where you might get caught up with the rest of the audience, or don't see it at all."

"But it was not a hit because it was good. It was a hit because the people that work at Paramount marketing are fucking geniuses"<p>maybe you missed one of the main attractions of the film: audience participation. Seeing PA1 in the theater was fun, haunted house style, due to all the screaming chicks. The movie wasnt bad either.

This is the horror movie equivalent of a Nickelback record. Same boring formula with a tad better production. Someone was drug out of bed in the first one, so we'll drag someone down a flight of stares in the second one. Massawyrm makes a great point in there is a difference between being scared and being startled. Startling people is easy, and it's cheap horror. Focus the camera on a window long enough, throw a piece of bologna at it and someone's gonna jump. Startling someone takes no thought.

I hate to be an overtly negative nellie and seeming internet troll but I have but one phrase for you regarding this....FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!!!!! Katie was not just scared in the first movie like you say, she was also pissed the hell off at Micah for not taking things more seriously and tried to weather his douchebaggery towards her because she still might have loved him in a way, she may have even felt that awfulest of feelings (sorry for dicking around on good grammar a little bit) that no one else would want her like Micah did. You might say that I am pointing out a hole in character development as you talk about in your review but I cannot help but wonder how many other horror films have come out that may inherently have that problem (does anyone remember the names of ALL the men in John Carpenter's Thing remake?). You even have a variation on Katie's tortured psyche with her sister in one of the worst cases of denial I have ever witnessed when she still would not tell her husband about her fears even after the kitchen occurrence (if that shit went down, I would fucking tell and show everyone the camera footage and ask my denying sister to explain that happening away, possible familial craziness be damned!). And you wanna compare this to FUCKING TWILIGHT? A movie series that has some of the most emotionless and morose characters I have ever seen committed to film? Shit, fucking emo goth kids are a helluva lot more interesting than that constantly sad bitch sack Bella and her glittery blood sucking boyfriend. I would rather see a movie series dedicated to the horse sized Indian wolves for pete's sake. Also, you even bring up the idea that the characters in 80s slashers are more interesting when it just fucking sounds like you were aching to see a pair of titties (for that my friend pop the 2009 Friday the 13th remake in your DVD player, a friend of mine's girlfriend doesn't mind the occasional nudity but considers the remake to be practically porn with all of its nude shots and sex scenes). Should I just remind you that many of those characters were laughably overblown caricatures and ongoing horny dark comedy relief before they met their end by the slash of Jason's machete? If you want that then rewatch the Tarantino/Rodriguez Grindhouse double feature if you want your campy characters. Sometimes people get bored with too much detail and besides isn't most of horror just variations on the same tropes again and again? All I know is that the last theatrical horror film (that wasn't an awful fucking remake but a better remake of a foreign film nonetheless) was the 2002 remake of The Ring. Both Paranormal Activity films do the one great and ultimate thing I would want out of horror and that is create a waking nightmare of spine tingling malevolence. It's the raw aspect of its reality that makes it just flat out frightening in my opinion, showcasing the mundane of existence and leaving the part of horror where it should be....in the shadows of the unknown which makes it that much more frightening (what the fuck do you want? a demon named Bill?). They even expanded on the mythology and gave a reason for those interested to want to see a 3rd movie. Oh and since "reality" based horror is still kinda new it's going to have it's own set of tropes like having the cast explain things to the camera (you learned about aspects of the past story with the documentary parts of The Blair Witch Project and no one it seems bitched about it then). At the end of this long angry ramble I've just gotta say that the first PA was nicely creepy and creative and PA2, for me anyway, sits next to The Ring remake as one of the most frightening theatrical experiences I've ever had and they both trump the originator that was The Blair Witch Project in scares. I just find it to be more scary than all of the overdone theatrical horror films that will ever be released.

And the main reason that the word "Capone" has lost all credibility. (Wait...whatever, you know what I mean) More than just "wow, i loved it!" or "shit, I hated it!", you've given reasonable examples of why this doesn't work without attacking the people who will enjoy it anyway. Regarding the movie - I get mindless escapism, but fuck, doesn't lazy shit like this just demean the genre entire? If any other film genre was treated as lazily as horror is (though I think romantic comedies are right there too), people would walk away in droves. He's absolutely right - it's just Jump Scare: The Motion Picture, and if that's all you want, watch Scary Movie 10 - it'll be better made.

I don't understand the fierce backlash people that don't like these movies have against them. It's one thing to dislike a film. I dislike a few. But the haters of the PA movies HAVE to be extremely vocal, as if pointing out that the rest of us who do enjoy them are mindless idiots. I have no idea why so many seem bitter toward them, like the film and the hype has betrayed them or something. It's as if they say "Everyone said this was such a scary movie and it didn't scare me so fuck this movie!" Pathetic and ignorant. Films don't hype. People hype themselves. And "character arc"... uh... the gimmick is that these aren't supposed to BE like movies. If you don't understand the context of the film and how it works or doesn't work for what it is and what it tries to do, DON'T REVIEW IT. You only make a jackass idiot of yourself, like other critics that don't get it. You can't judge a movie like this or the first one against legit, structured paranormal movies like The Haunting or The Changeling. These are found footage movies. They abide by different rules. You either go along for the ride, or you don't. Quite simple, really. But don't act like the rest of us who can let go of reality enough to enjoy a horror movie are idiots. Let me guess... Massawyrm probably only admits to liking The Shining, The Exorcist... maaaaybe Halloween... because those are "the only good ones" (i.e. the only ones you can readily admit to liking, lest you be kicked out of the "serious" film critic (snob) club. Sad.

I guess it would have been impossible for you to say "In my differing opinion..." Because when you start with "Fuck you! I know the TRUTH," people tend to roll their eyes and scroll down. In short - grow up and use your words, child.

When it comes to reviewing, there is criticism and then there is simply congratulating yourself on how much you can insult something. You do the latter, consistently. You drag the site down to a twitter level of 'journalism'. I don't think I've ever been so close to leaving this site for good.

that internet meme you speak of in your review was made to be funny. In comparing that to PA2, tell me, WHAT THE FUCK IS FUNNY ABOUT, among other things, a woman with a bad past being terrorized, a dog being abused by an unseen agressor, a father at the end of his rope coming unwound when he realizes that there might just be some truth to what he tried to deny, a possessed murder suspect adding to her body count, another possessed person with a bite wound on her inner thigh going feral and the fact that, to take the supernatural heat off of themselves, a family will attempt to sacrifice another loved one to such an obscenely horrible force? I will hand you this much Massawyrm, I wish they had done something a little differently from the ending of the first movie when it comes to flying objects or people. One of the only parts of the movie I was down on and I promise you, if they replicate this aspect of the first movie's ending in the third movie I will both laugh and shake my fist angrily at the heavens. This sequel will stay with me in my psyche for many a Halloween to come.

No, I'm saying you should understand the goal of a film before trying to review it. I enjoy the original My Bloody Valentine and The Burning, though great films they may not be. Within the slasher sub-genre, they are quite good. I wouldn't judge them because they weren't the movies The Exorcist or The Haunting were. Most critics just generalize blindly, instead of judging a movie on its own goals and intentions. Why on earth would you try to criticize a movie for not being something it never intended to be? This never once tried to be your typical, three-act structured movie, so why treat it like one and fault it for not being so? THAT, is ignorance. Massawyrm isn't alone. Many, many others who claim to be critics do the same thing. That's why I really don't take critics all that seriously because most just don't get it. They fill their word count and move on to their next pseudo-intellectual review.

of Paranormal Activity that "Massawyrm" has written. I haven't seen the sequel, but the first one was great fun, and I could start to go line by line to address everything above... it's like the dwarves believing they are in a dark stable... this rant against Paranormal.

I will refer to this review next time I discuss the first PA with some drooling idiot who tries to tell me how scary it was. The first one was unadulterated boring bullshit. I really can't believe anyone over the age of 8 found it scary or frightening (or entertaining) in ANY way. I get a kick out of people like Castaway who defend this shit and attempt to explain how "deep" and brilliant these shitty "films" are. Check out Ghost Hunters on TV if this stuff turns your crank. Same exact thing, except at least there's a very remote, SLIGHT chance it could be real. This is just a movie and you KNOW it's fake. Seriously, have your balls dropped yet?

I liked it. Anyone who liked the first will enjoy this one. If not, then yeah--you won't be converted. This is the kind of "horror" movie I've been waiting for. Hostel, Saw, etc are gross-out-contests whereas PA is a jump-scare fest that at least tries to be clever instead of just thinking of new ways to draw blood from the human body.

why don't you actually go to the trouble of reading my post instead of calling me a child or did I use to many words for you? By the way, I couldn't think of a better phrase to illustrate my feelings and so I genuinely say to you....I am rather happy I gave you a good hard laugh for the day.

And I quote; "I'm no snob, and if you are, that's your problem. In my business, if you lose your taste for good baloney, it's time you got into some other line of work."
In other words, you like what you like, and let us like what we like. That is all.

Hostel, Saw, Friday 13th and Nightmare on Elm are also movies we walk into KNOWING they're fake and cannot be real. Out of curiosity, what would you consider a good horror / scary movie? <p>
Sure, if you don't like "found footage" movies or hated Blair Witch for being shakey-cam, you probably won't like this. But PA and PA2 are more closely related to good, old-school terror like Exorcist and Poltergeist than slasher-splatter flicks like Hatchet, Saw, etc. <p>
And BTW, one month till Miley.

"But in ten years I imagine people will look back and remember the experience..." And the problem is??? The very advertising campaign for this film is built around the group experience. How many people remember being at a sporting event, concert, etc. and recounting the feeling of getting caught up in emotions of the crowd, and not even remembering what you were watching? Don't criticize the movie for not being what you want it to be. Why can't we just enjoy a movie for what it is? I'm not going to see Paranormal Experience for character development, instead I'm going to see it so I experience some scares with a couple hundred other people who are looking for that exact same experience.

Yes, in a sea of remakes I think it is rather brilliant in a way just not the end all be all of horror I just thought Massawyrm sold it just a little too short and I got pissed off about that. I went into this movie with low expectations and thought the acting of the first film would be worlds better but felt pleasantly surprised that this one had better acting. Oh yeah and maybe if Ghost Hunters had floating infants and lunging bloodthirsty new wives then I might actually watch it.

You're right, I did not give your breathless, screeching "reply" much consideration at all. It amounted to "wah wah wah YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT" bullshit. Have a differing opinion; love the fucking movie - I don't care. But grow the hell up.

I guess my issue is that the type of people who enjoyed PA are generally the people who look down their noses at slasher films, "torture porn", gorefests, etc. as if jump scares are so much more sophisticated. No, they're not. My buddy's four-year-old can sneak up behind me when it's quiet and scare the crap out of me by making a loud noise or throwing something across the room. Guess the kid must be the next big horror genius.
<p>
I'm frightened by the concept of being killed or tortured, because those are REAL things that ACTUALLY HAPPEN. So yeah, some "torture porn" and more realistic horror flicks are more my style. That's why I love Halloween (the film) and am indifferent toward Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. As an adult, I'm not frightened by the supernatural or zombie-like killers. I am scared of some maniac with a knife who has no sense of right or wrong.

Finally got around to watching the first one on DVD with my wife, and anticipated at least a decent little snuggle-fest under the covers with a severely over-hyped horror movie. And when it got to the end, my wife and I looked at each other and said 'Was that it? That's the end? Where was all the scary stuff?' Now in fairness, Massa is right that the first movie's success was more the success of good marketing than the actual movie itself. And given that fact, there is no way it could have ever lived up to the hype, so it already had two strikes against it for us, watching it months later on DVD. Now I suspect that it is also true that a movie like this is much more fun and entertaining if being watched in a movie theater filled with other paying patrons who are all eager for the ride to be a good one. So, I likely will not be seeing this new one at all, since the next time I plunk down my hard-earned cash for a ticket to see a 'horror' movie will be the first time. Just not my cup of tea.

Rex, I actually went through and cited my problems with Massawyrm's review and in another post even conceded certain things to him but I guess the more adult thing to do is to just blindly make a generalization about what someone wrote instead of actually reading through it and making counterpoints. Some adults are prone to do that so I guess this crying child can't blame you for being more "adult." And Captain Axis, not picking at you but just wanted to say I guess it is the fact that all the torture in slasher flicks (which I do enjoy as well) is usually being done by something mortal that can be bled out and killed. What I find terrifying about the PA films is that this is not a force that we can just reach out and fight back against, you actually have to use your head to fight back because nothing really physical can be done (again, not trying to pick at you on that just putting out an opinion). I like the slashers more for a gross out factor than I do for any actual feelings of fear.

Can be good when it's used properly. I had some problems with Cloverfield (running in the subway in high heels, jumping from one building to the next, girlfriend still alive for so long) but I thought the "found footage" aspect enhanced the story and the characters. Movies like PA and Blair Witch and The Fourth Kind are more like reality shows, trying to convince you what you're watching is "real", which pisses me off as a viewer. I know it's a movie, it's fake, stop trying to tell me it's real and just introduce me to some interesting characters or a good story.

I can look past the notion that movies play up the "true life" angle of the "footage", but when Blair Witch did it, it was relatively fresh. Now, seems like everyone's hopping on the bandwagon. I don't mind the format, but some filmmakers seem to put the emphasis on advertising the gimmick instead of letting the story present itself.
As for Cloverfield, I thought that was a good take on the idea; Toho Studios is probably kicking themselves on a missed opportunity.

Halloween is one of my faves. Friday 13th and Nightmare movies amuse me, but lack the "creep-out" factor Halloween had. I enjoy the first couple saw movies, but again they don't really frighten me or tap into a sense of latent, primal fears like Jaws, Poltergeist, and now PA. The slashers CAN be good, as you said, but like castaway said in his post above, the fear simply isn't there.

When I sat through PA 1 I was incredulous. That was the "horror movie of the year"? It had no plot and about 1.5 minor scares. People compared it to Blair Witch, but get real--the first time I saw Blair Witch (at an advance screening, without any knowledge going it) I about shit my pants. PA 1 didn't even make me fart.
And now they're peddling part 2? I hope everyone who thought part 1 was good goes back for more. Let those fucking idiots throw more of their hard earned dough down the toliet . . .

...and at one point in the movie (approximately 40 minutes in?), I literally blurted out, "JESUS CHRIST, SOMETHING HAPPEN ALREADY!!!" Most of the audience laughed and started blurting out stuff as well. Of course, I got a "Fuck off!!!" from some dumb bitch, to which I replied, "Eat a cock!" keep in mind, this dumb bitch would scream ridiculously loud and exaggerated every chance she got...

To see so many base their own viewing habits on one review of a movie is just sad. Do you guys get other people's opinions before you go to the restroom? Almost makes it seem like movie reviewing is a legit profession. No one person can tell me what I like or don't like. I have my own mind and can think for myself. Grow a pair and watch the movie on your own. Develop your own thoughts. You'll find movie-watching becomes a much more enjoyable experience when you do. Why on earth would you base watching a horror movie or a comedy on someone else's opinion, when both genres are subjective? it is impossible to tell if what makes me laugh will make you laugh. It is impossible to tell if what scares you will scare me. Why people rely so much on other people's opinions on movies, i'll never understand. Live a little. Its okay to experience a bad movie once in a while. I promise it won't kill you. I watched The Number 23, and I'm still tickin'.

Caught a screening of this last night. I dug the first one and this one didn't disappoint. The criticisms raised here are valid. It all comes down to personal taste. The packed house I saw it with seemed to enjoy it immensely. Lots of screams and jumps. A teenage/twenty-something girl behind me was actually crying at one point. I thought it was pretty effective with some real standout scenes.
But if you didn't like the first one, you're not going to like this one.
Except you get to see Katie in a bikini top this time out.

I understand Massa's complaint by calling this "lazy" horror. I'm sure I could set up a fixed camera at a busy intersection for a week, and afterward edit together some of the most dramatic, harrowing footage imaginable. The whole concept is that we're staring at an image, waiting for something to happen, then voila, something happens (shadow appears, door closes,etc.) and the audience experiences a "ooooh, didja see that?" moment. Its manipulation at its most simplest.

"Parnanormal Activity" was the biggest sack of shit I've ever seen. Boring as watching flies fuck. It was an overhyped excuse to put a youtube video into theaters and what baffles me the most are the shitbrains who actually think it was scary. WHEN THE FUCK WAS IT SCARY? It had the two most unlikeable, stupid main characters I've seen since "The Blair Witch Project" and at no time did you even give a fuck if they were killed or not. It's the first haunting flick I've seen where I WAS ROOTING FOR THE FUCKING GHOST! Fuck these movies.

To see so many base their own viewing habits on one review of a movie is just sad. Do you guys get other people's opinions before you go to the restroom? Almost makes it seem like movie reviewing is a legit profession. No one person can tell me what I like or don't like. I have my own mind and can think for myself. Grow a pair and watch the movie on your own. Develop your own thoughts. You'll find movie-watching becomes a much more enjoyable experience when you do. Why on earth would you base watching a horror movie or a comedy on someone else's opinion, when both genres are subjective? it is impossible to tell if what makes me laugh will make you laugh. It is impossible to tell if what scares you will scare me. Why people rely so much on other people's opinions on movies, i'll never understand. Live a little. Its okay to experience a bad movie once in a while. I promise it won't kill you. I watched The Number 23, and I'm still tickin'.

When I went to see it I was well aware as with the first movie that it was in no way real. But I suspended my disbelief and allowed myself to think "What if this WAS real?"
Ultimatly I think if one has a sufficiently good imagination and can empathize with how they the watcher would feel in a similiar situation then you will get the most out of a movie like this or PA1.
Having read this review I think that being a clinical reviewer may have actually hurt Massawyrms opinion of the film. Is it a slick polished film with fleshed out characters and snappy dialogue? No it sure isn't. But if one considers the medium of found footage I feel it would have come across as seeming extremely FAKE if the actors in the film HAD started talking like they had a team of writers sitting at a keyboard coming up with things for them to say. Similiarly I felt the actors portrayals of their roles were quite believable. Everyone seemed completely ORDINARY in every way I could think. As they should because they were supposed to be an average family.
By deconstructing and analyzing the movie Massawyrm has not allowed himself to be immersed in the idea of "What if this shit was happening to me?" and a result he WOULD find it boring.
So ultimately if someone is going expecting to see a great example of cinematography and great CHARACTERS and snappy dialogue, skip this movie. If you want to see a movie that has situations that would make most of us shit ourselves if they were happening to us conveyed in a realistic medium then enjoy

or not, or whether its good or bad. We're complaining that the filmmakers are using cheap, base, simplistic methods to elicit a reaction. If you enjoy it, and I'm sure a packed house of anxious tweens help, fine. I recently saw Let Me In in a packed theater of 5 people total, and I enjoyed it totally.

which is to say, people that are easily impressed. it was the Blair Witch Project all over again, which only succeeded in entertaining people who were gullible. <p>
gimmick movies, and gimmick filmmakers, will always have a place in cinema, as long as your dumb girlfriend keeps buying movie tickets.

Also if you DO NOT believe in ghosts or supernatural phenomenon in any way then don't see this movie. You WILL be bored shitless because you will never be able to put yourself in that what if position. I'm not saying you HAVE to believe in ghosts to like this movie, merely that you need to be open to the possibility at least.

I saw the 1st one and it was fine. The characters just seemed like ordinary people and NOT like scripted hollywood actors. That is one of the main reasons the first movie worked. So, being as Massy hated the first one and I enjoyed it, I gather this one must be pretty good. Word.

This review didn't surprise me. The first one was boring and not scary, so I didn't think this one would be any different. Then again, I haven't like any of the "footage" films. Hated Blairwitch, hated Cloverfield... they're just not entertaining to me at all.

Nonsense. I knew it was fake and watched it at home. I thought it was very effective, particularly after the one kid disappears. I love camping and hiking, so I was able to easily imagine being in those situations.

When someone dislikes a movie, they feel it is their duty to make you dislike it? I have nothing against a movie review, but don't trash the people who enjoy them. I'm sure there are more than enough guilty pleasures and fat skeletons in your bedroom closet that attest to that. I don't get it. If everyone liked the exact same movie for the exact same reasons, how boring would this gig be man? We all have opinions and likes and dislikes. NO MORE valid than the next persons. Review the film. NICE. Making comments about it's viewers, not cool...

How is it that the one reviewer on this site that can actually write a decent review is the one that I consistently disagree with? I was freaked the hell out by the first film, and I saw PA2 last night and, while *slightly* less freaked out, I was fread out just the same. The thing about how I imagine haunted houses and ghosts in real life (should they exist) is that it WOULD be like they appear in these films.... nothing, nothing, nothing them BAM! then what the fuck was that? and then nothing. The hair on the back of my neck was standing on end during the entire film. I will grant you that repeat viewings are probably unnecessary, so by default, I guess that yes, it is more about the experience than the film. But so fucking what? What an experience! The entire audience I saw it with seemed on board so whatever.

Go ahead, ask me if my balls have dropped. I'm fucking 40, and demonic possession movies/ghost stories scare the fuck out of me if they're done right. Still can't watch The Exorcist without my hands over my eyes for half of the movie (and even then, the sounds freak me out!), and, as crap as I thought Paranormal Activity was on a purely intrinsic level, the shit stuck with me by the time I got home, and I found myself cowering under the sheets thinking about the goddamned thing for weeks. I think it's a Catholic thing, and I think that, if you suffer from Catholic guilt like me, these movies work. If you don't, they don't work. It's really as simple as that.

is because it's all "Emperor's New Clothes." The amiable idiots of the world happily consumed the marketing ploy for this movie and bought into the concept. I don't disagree that some movies hold a different experience when you see them in a crowded theater (Star Wars, Spider-Man, Tranformers, etc.), but when people say that PA1 and PA2 are the scariest movies ever, my eybrows raise a great deal.
I'm sure my parents would find PA1 to be scary, but they are not fans of horror or scary movies. I always ask PA1 fans what other movies they find to be scary, and inevitably I never hear "Session 9" or <insert Japanese horror movie here>." It's always some watered down horror movie that we've all seen on tv a hundred times.
I know movies are subjective, but you PA fans are really getting drunk on the kool-aid. It's a boring movie that would have been forgotten if not for the marketing scheme.
I'll concede that people may enjoy these two films for the experience, but when they start praising them as great scary movies, then I'm going to call you out and make you defend that statement. And arguing that "Well, Saw, Friday and Nightmare all suck and are derrivative, therefore PA is great movie" is a flawed argument, and distracts from the bigger picture about all of you fans being duped by the marketing.

I'm shocked that the original is so well liked on Rotten Tomatoes, it is one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is abysmal and the formula of the film (here's something scary from the night footage, actors the next day discussing what the audience has already seen) drags the movie to a whole new level of stupid. Where's Waldo is right. I hope the sequel fails financially so we can put this whole thing behind us.

It's as Massa says. Once you know the tricks it falls flat. If you watch them on your own or even with a well behaved audience you'll get bored. But see it with a bunch of jacked up teenagers who you'd never want to see any other kind of movie with and the audience becomes the other half of the movie. Kinda like the built-in audience in Rubber I guess...

I'm with you Potch. I dont diss the people who enjoy the found footage films. In fact I envy them. For some reason they've never rally entertained me...yet I still keep watching..go figure. Although REC was enjoyable mostly because I was in awe of the special effects integration.

You either go along for the ride, or you don't. If you don't like roller-coasters, you should not ride roller-coasters. End of story. But if you stand by a roller-coaster telling everyone who's riding it that they're stupid and delusional for enjoying the ride, you only come off as an insane prick who will end up being thrown out of Six Flags! To put it plainly, every movie is not going to be everyone's cup of tea. It's fine to dislike anything you please. But when you play the game of everything you like is quality, and everything you dislike is shit, you're just being an insulting fuckwad who needs to be totally ignored.<p> So basically, if "found footage" movies leave you cold, stay away from them. But those of us who choose to take that ride, and enjoy it, don't give a flying fuck what you think about it.

What a bunch of whining, prepubescent pubes. HELLO? IT'S A FREAKING REVIEW. Massawyrm reviewed the film based on his own tastes. Some of us trust him, some do not. If you don't agree with his typical views of film, go see the movie. Holy CR@P, I gotta stop reading these comments. My blood pressure is up.

Why do you guys bother to send a guy who hated PA1 to read reviews of PA2 when you know that the people most likely to read PA2 reviews are the ones who liked the first one...I only read the first paragraph and was ok, lets move on to the next review.

***Edit of the first post***
Why do you guys bother to send a guy who hated PA1 to review PA2 when you know that the people most likely to read PA2 reviews are the ones who liked the first one...I only read the first paragraph and was ok, lets move on to the next review.

Was a piece of SHIT. But I love Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, and Cloverfield.
The people above cussing about how these films are not scary and such remind me of a few of the people who I show The Shining or The Exorcist to. They end up declaring it's laughable and not scary. It's really because they're personally missing components of perception/imagination/context in their brains as they watch these. So basically all they are saying is that they don't have the ability to enjoy these movies. But to say their condition of unaffectedness is reflective of the movie as opposed to themselves is like a fool insisting that the world is flat because it looks that way to themselves. I mean people are dreading and shuddering in fear (not just the sudden jumps) in these movies. You can emperically record these reactions of terror. It's not my opinion. It's fact.

How do you keep a vagina clean? Do you have to periodically scrub it out? Do you have to inject it with chemicals? Since you are a proud owner of the biggest, quivering pussy I've ever heard of, I figure you are the person to ask.

Ignore all other "reviews" of this thing.<P>If you enjoy the experience, you enjoy the experience. Some people like to golf. But stop trying to convince anyone that an effective experience is a good movie. It isn't.<P>
"Marketing geniuses" at marketing nothing other than the supposed cleverness of their own genius. All you guys who have been obsessing over Easter Eggs in a trailer can stop now and admit that you've been suckered in to wasting your time. Please. Otherwise, you're just making an arse of yourself.<P>Frankly, I'm tired of this viral disease. We need the vaccine. Stat!

I agree. I saw a free preview screening in the middle of Cleveland, which meant that our audience was very diverse--across races, ages, and both genders--and the reactions were loud and came at the appropriate times. Most fun I've had at the show in a while. Nothing, nothing, nothing, innocuous household stuff, nothing--BAM! MuaahhAHHHH!

I wasn't aware of the marketing of the first PA and didn't see it until it hit video. As for the new movie, I didn't spend any time studying the trailer before going in. I liked it for what it was without any of the silly PR shite.<p>
What we learn most from PA2 is that if you want to be safe from demons, you should join the Misfits fiend club, pledgeyour allegiance to Glenn Danzig, and hang Misfits gear on your wall. ONly then will you be a friend of evil.

the jury is still out on whether friends of Danzig will survive PA3, next October. <P>To be truly safe from evil, one must burn incense and leave nasty, toilet-clogging dumps in the bathroom.<P>No one is going to fault the laziness of this when it has the exact ending the last one did?<P>Oops. Was I supposed to say SPOILER?

I thought was a boring film with about 10 interesting minutes. However, when I went home that night and would hear a creak, the hair on my neck would stand up. So...I think in the end the movie did its job.

I thought was a boring film with about 10 interesting minutes. However, when I went home that night and would hear a creak, the hair on my neck would stand up. So...I think in the end the movie did its job.

As someone that didn't like the first one, and is fairly critical of horror films, I thought this was great, with a WONDERFUL, terrifying ending. Just because something isn't happening all the time doesn't mean something is boring (although it doesn't mean it isn't, either), but rather, something is BUILDING, and the tension is being set.

PA and like PA2...fine. If you don't..fine. What I can't stand is base level manipulation the filmmakers are using to create audience reaction. They are taking a big rubber hammer and banging our knee, and we're amazed when our leg kicks forward. It's LAZY filmmaking.

You and I are on the exact same page. I hate how people bitch about movies being gory, and say shit like, "oh it's only scary if you don't see the gore!" But then everyone creams their pants for movies that are nothing but jump scares. I don't get it. Jump scares aren't fucking scary!! Saw PA2 last night, and yeah, I jumped the entire time, but was I actually frightened? Hell no. Slept like a baby. Think I slept like a baby after Session 9? The Shining? Two movies I might add, that do show gore, but not a single jump scare. Really wish Hollywood would realize loud noises do not equal terror.

I dont particularly care for the PA movies but his chosen qualms with them only suggest to me that Massawyrm wants everything to be a Michael Bay movie. People dig the PA movies cause it sticks to the simple and relatable "what if?" premise of your own home being haunted. If that were the case in real life subtle things would indeed freak you out. A bump in the night would startle you. Not everything should be like the Haunting (remake) or Poltergeist (one of the most overrated pieces of trash ever) where fucking fireplaces turn into monsters and eat you alive and goddamn houses spin around and ghosts suck you through a TV. Meandering dialogue peppered with creepiness is no more of less a cheat/gimmick then Darth Vader having his own theme song. As for "character development" so what? I watched some shit film called "A Guy Thing" today and that had "character development" whoopdy fuckin do. In real life a swinging chandalier would freak you out. In real life hardly anyone goes through character development. Right, we dont go to movies for a slice of real life, fine. Well the goddamn movies about ghosts so obviously you're not going for a slice of life anyway. Massawyrm just likes his movies to jump up and down and holler for conventional attention like a petulant child. "character development". What a laugh. As if those two words inherently mean anything. Marty McFly had no character development yet BTTF trilogy is the bomb.

Let's see, he'd make Micah a cheating fiancee and Katie a recovering alcoholic. Yes, yes and through the shared turmoil of their haunted experience Micah would realize he is indeed in love with Katie who in turn realizes she is with child and HAS to kick her alcohol habit for the sake of their child. This is good. Yes. Character development. No movie is complete without. Let's see, what else? Ooh let's bring in a priest who is suffering a crisis of faith only to have that faith restored by the spiritual realities of this haunting. Let's make him a recovering cigarette smoker who cant quite break the habit. Of course in the final scene, after helping save the day, he decides to crumple up his pack and throw it away. Character development. It's so damn important to a movie.

what do you find to be frightening? seriously? I find the unknown, that which cannot really be defined, to be scary. I've spoken to other people that think I'm a moron and with some of them it is the same thing. Oooh The Howling was scary (silver bullets in an AK-47 clears up that hairy little problem). John Carpenter's The Thing remake was bone chilling (uhhh fire clears that up, though I will of course concede that what that remake had going for it was how ominous it was that the viewer did not know who else was infected). About the only physical threat I find a little scary are the sprinting fast moving infected of 28 Days Later and maybe certain zombie movies with massive numbers of the undead (because if they are not in great numbers, it kinda sounds like they would be easy to pick off one by one). Hollywood is not done with the found footage gimmick although I found PA2 to be so intense it made me want to crawl back to the mostly non-scary material that usually gets produced. Bring on Cloverfield 2 and, whether you overt haters like it or not, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3!

I remember you not seeing at the time of its release and you speaking highly of its success as though you were gonna enjoy it. I guess you finally got around to seeing it and saying "WHAT THE FUCK!? All excitement for THAT!!??" Haha

...but the first one was pretty good. Lots of character development, a steady story line, and just enough scary stuff to keep you interested, with out all the blood. The first Paranormal was exactly as it was advertised but apparently it wasn't for everybody. The whole idea was to get you to look around the screen, to get you to think that yes, indeedy, that was freaky, to get you wondering what was coming next. It was a good thing they talked about mundane things, a good thing that Micah was the way he was. That was the point. Sorry you missed it. Seeing the evil is scary, but not seeing it is even worse.

You don't sound like you're familiar with his body of work. I consider him one of the more reasoned reviewers on the site, which doesn't mean we always see eye to eye, but all the same I'd weight his POV on certain genres more than most here.

...did you honestly think that the second one, would contain a coherent story line? The only thing frightening about these films, is that people will actually hand over money, to watch these pieces of shit.
Enjoy your feed, Sheeple!

Well that goes without saying seeing as how much the critics here are illiterate retards and by now are slaves and whores to their ad banners. Expendables rocks because if it doesnt Stallone wont interview with Harry no more. Not only is Expendables great according to Harry, he has to go on about what a raging hard on it gave him. He's talking about cumming his pants and resorting to hyperbole over a film that was marginally entertaining at best. This site is pussywhipped. They also often irresponsibly post rumors as fact only to have to retract them, blaming their "source" for being unreliable rather than blaming themselves for not checking their source. Which its their job to do anyway.

Like I said maybe when I was 12 (and if I was a girl)you could put me in a dark room and yell BOO! I grew up watching the Classic Universal Monsters on local TV (before cable)here in VA and as tame as those Classics are they're still more frightening than PA. And you'll get a fight from any true Horror fan when you mention Classics like The Howling and John Carpenter's The Thing in the same sentence with the Overly hyped Paranormal IN activity 1 or 2. And hell if you want too see something really scarier than PA go watch( .rec) now that's a new classic.
But you better get your mommy's permission first it is rated R after all.

What, exactly, was so scary about Paranormal Activity? Maybe it takes a lot to scare me, but every horror film that has come out in the last decade that moviegoers have been scared shitless by has had me bored into a near comatose state. Paranormal Activity was no different. I don't remember feeling anything other than boredom and wanting to punch both of the characters.

I don't mind if Massawyrm hates this movie. Columnists are supposed to have opinions. Why the fuck woudl we read this site if everyone was a suckup? Harrys reviews are openly mocked for his "bitght and shiny" attitude about most films. <BR> Give him a break<BR><BR> I do find it odd that Massa hates PA2 so much, but that's really just my own personal opinion conflicting there becuase I ended up liking PA1 myself. And there are far far far worse horror/shock/ movies out there lately. ( well I haven't seen PA2, but I'll just assume PA2 is on par with PA1. ) <BR><BR>Anyway...for example I thought "Drag me to Hell" was horribly acted and with cheap Gross out gimmicks. I wonder what Massa thought of that. QUint and Harry jizzed all over it, mostly out of Rami love, not because it was actually good cinema. So i just say to myself "meh."

Some of the most effective horror is found in what you don't see. Those shots of an empty, quiet house in the middle of the night kick up some of that fear I experienced when I was little, being alone and hearing noises in an empty house. Fear of the dark. I fail to see how a slasher running around stabbing nubile teens is scary, while the more psychological horror is "bottom of the barrel." Yes, there are a few borderline gimmicky scares in Paranormal Activity 2, but I thought it showed remarkable restraint for a Hollywood-produced sequel (witness Blair Witch 2) and tied into the original nicely, story-wise. The characterizations are not as strong as the first, I felt I knew the characters in the first a lot better than in the sequel, but it's still not bad at all and decently spooky.

It wasn't as good as the first one (nothing matched the creepiness of Katie's sleepwalking for me), but it was a really good time. The audience was into it -- the women in the theater screamed a bunch of times, and there was always a crowd reaction when the movie transitioned to the night scenes. I'll always prefer this type of horror movie to slasher movies or torture porn, neither of which are scary anymore and really weren't all that scary to begin with.

Goddamn return key...anyway, these aren't movies guys. I feel like this shit would have worked way better on YouTube. That way, at least you could only assume it's fake, and not know for sure. That's what's scary about this kind of footage.

I saw PA on DVD recently expecting to see something like Blair Witch. It wasn't as good as Blair Witch and TBH I didn't think Blair Witch was much cop either. I won't ever be watching the sequel(s) to either as life is too short and time is too precious but thanks, Massawyrm, for confirming my suspicions. <br><br>For the record, both films would've benefited from more interesting characters, wittier dialogue and 'scares' that weren't generated by bad actors proclaiming "OMG, OMG...". Truth is, a horror film needs to be scarier than the town in which you live. You want to see a disturbing film watch Michael Caine's "Harry Brown" (or if you're in the UK just look out of the window). If a horror film isn't at least as scary as real life then it's failing. Swinging chandeliers are nothing compared with knife-wielding smack heads.

the first movie SUCKED ASS! <p>
only stupid women and sissy guys were into it. Seriously, this is the kind of thing tea party voters probably LOVED. they probably were thinking about how to eat out sarah palin while watching this shit. selling off their first born for a ice cream cone and a white sheet. fuck paranormal activity and its idiotic fan base.

welcome to our store: www.soozone.com
,”’╭⌒╮⌒╮.’,”’,,’,.”,,’,”,.
╱◥██◣”o’,”’,,’,.”.”,,’,.
｜田｜田田│ ”,,’,.’,”’,,’,.”
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬
1) Excellent quality made of genuine leather with reasonable price.
2) Fashionable design.
3) Various colors and styles are available in our store.
4) OEM orders are welcomed.
Reliable online sites for buying shoes,if you are interested in any of our products,pls feel free to let me know ,
I am happy to be your service at any time.
I really hope to do something for you.
Website: www.soozone.com

I enjoy the "found footage" approach. Seems valid, considering how much of many people's lives is now captured on video. And PA2 dovetailed with 1 in a lovely, nasty way. I was thoroughly creeped out. The baby and dog stuff was brilliant. Just another form of storytelling, and a lot of fun.